lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] THE LINUX/I386 BOOT PROTOCOL - Breaking the 256 limit (ping)
LILO memory usage:

000600 - 001000 BIOS data check area. Okay to overwrite. LILO usage
suppressed with command line "nobd" option. There's also a config
file option to suppress usage.

LILO typically loads at 9000:0000 up to the top of the EBDA. Top of
EBDA is determined by "int 12h." Some BIOS's on add-in cards do not
properly allocate the EBDA. Use LILO Makefile option "BUG_SI_EBDA"
to allocate extra EBDA for the BIOS. If the BIOS data check area is
created at boot time by LILO, then:

> lilo -T ebda

will tell you where LILO is loaded on your system.

--John


At 02:39 PM Sunday 8/27/2006, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>Andi Kleen wrote:
>>On Sunday 27 August 2006 21:32, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>Andi Kleen wrote:
>>>>Just increasing that constant caused various lilo setups to not boot
>>>>anymore. I don't know who is actually to blame, just wanting to
>>>>point out that this "obvious" patch isn't actually that obvious.
>>>How would that even be possible (unless you recompiled LILO with
>>>the new headers)? There would be no difference in the memory
>>>image at the point LILO hands off to the kernel.
>>AFAIK the problem was that some EDD data got overwritten.
>>
>>>In order to reproduce this we need some details about your
>>>"various LILO setups", or this will remain as a source of cargo
>>>cult programming.
>>You can search the mailing list archives, it's all in there if you don't
>>belive me.
>
>Found the references. This seems to imply that EDD overwrites the
>area used by LILO 22.6.1. LILO 22.6.1 uses the new boot protocol,
>with the full pointer, and seems to obey the spec as far as I can
>read the code. I'm going to try to run it in simulation and observe
>the failure that way.
>
>However, something is still seriously out of joint. The EDD data
>actually overlays the setup code, not the bootsect code, and thus
>there "shouldn't" be any way that this could interfere. My best
>guess at this time is that either the EDD code or LILO uses memory
>it's not supposed to use, and the simulation should hopefully reveal that.
>
>Sorry if I seem snarky on this, but if we can't get to the bottom of
>this we can't ever fix it.
>
> -hpa


PGP KeyID: 6781C9C8 (good until 31-Dec-2008)
Keyserver at ldap://keyserver.pgp.com OR http://pgp.mit.edu
LILO links at http://freshmeat.net/projects/lilo
and Help link at http://lilo.go.dyndns.org


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-28 05:31    [W:0.068 / U:4.668 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site